Jump to content

Talk:O'Hare International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chidino (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 2 October 2018 (→Architectural recognition of dominant hubs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Statistics

Removed this statement, which appears to be true (from forums on Airliners.net) from flight/passenger numbers at ORD:

"It is among a select group of airports worldwide with the distinction of serving more than 200 destinations, along with Heathrow, Frankfurt, Atatürk, Amsterdam, Charles de Gaulle, Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Munich, and Dubai.[citation needed]"

Perfunctory research indicated informal support for the numbers (by internet users comparing airports' own numbers) but no definitive, published numbers to reference.Chidino (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Modernization plan" section

First off, it looks like the "modernization plan" section has not been updated in a while. Second, should that section be merged into the "History" section? Much of the events listed in the modernization plan section took place quite a while ago and it may not be appropriate to continue to give it its own section (then, of course, I'm not sure what the exact status of the plan is as it does not appear to have been updated in a while). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Modernization plan section and added a section for the new terminal plan. Chidino (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure

In the past, history of runways was both here and in the earlier sections about the history and growth of ORD. I'm going to make a judgement call and say that the references earlier are sufficient, and if additional fleshing out from there is needed, I honestly don't think it belongs in this section. Here the discussion should be as to facilities, runways, infrastructure as it currently exists, imo... maybe in the event a lost pilot brings this description up while flying? slight LOLChidino (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air India to Hyderabad

Stop adding Hyderabad! Many users have repeatedly added HYD as a destination for ORD even though HYD-ORD-DEL is not on the same plane. There is a change from a 777 to another 777 in DEL. Additionally, per bullet #7 of AIRPORT-CONTENT, flights travelling through hubs on the same flight number should not have the final "flight number destination" listed. --Irehdna (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Class change

Some very kind person(s) at WikiProject Aviation/Airports raised their ranking of this article to B class. I took the liberty, based on that, to raise the page's ranking on WikiProject Illinois to B, since that project is listed as semi-active. I'll submit to WikiProject Chicago for assessment. Chidino (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B rating

Chidino, I am having trouble giving this a B rating. I don't feel the WP:LEAD is really a summary of the article. If the LEAD is not decent, I can't support B. The LEAD seems to have all kinds of facts that are not even in the article rather than summarize it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I was imitating various airport articles, rather than following Wikipedia standards for WP:LEAD. I'll keep working on it. Chidino (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the LEAD to be a very brief summary of some of the highlights. Chidino (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that you include a summary of each major section in the LEAD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, every paragraph should have at least one WP:IC from a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better? (I haven't written a LEAD before, so I appreciate your help. I have been following the standards and trying to adapt them here, and any feedback would be great.) Chidino (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Airlines and destinations" and "Statistics" sections remain as sectionz without prose. Each section should have well-cited prose. That prose should be summarized in the LEAD. The "Cargo" section has substantial prose and remains unsummarized in the LEAD. You will either need to reorganize the article or rework the LEAD. I am not a big fan of the current summary of the Terminals section. N. B.: In the end the LEAD will have to be 3 or 4 paragraphs (4 is the max for a quality LEAD). I remain concerned that many paragraphs are without ICs from RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural recognition of dominant hubs

@Magnolia677 In respect to Undid revision 852864104 by Funarchitect How is being one out of 200 notable? Please discuss.

Would the following be more acceptable? 

In celebration of the 2018 Illinois Bicentennial, more than 3500 licensed Architects from throughout Illinois were asked to select the State's 200 most important architectural places, dating from the earliest prehistoric settlements to the most modern designs and structures; based on its unique spaces with their "splendid sense of light, and of lightness", [1] the United Airlines Terminal at O’Hare was selected as one of these Illinois 200 Great Places [2] by the American Institute of Architects Illinois component (AIA Illinois).

--Funarchitect (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Funarchitect As a contributor to this page that has struggled to help provide a consistent voice, I hope you don't mind my chiming in.

I believe this is an excessive amount of detail that doesn't serve O'Hare well. (As trivial as it sounds, if you boost the Terminal 1 coverage, an equal amount dedicated to Terminal 3 will magically appear.) This section, in particular, is dealing with the progress of the airport in the 1980s. Current architectural recognition, right before returning to construction on Terminal 3 in the 1980s, is abrupt and IMO misplaced in this section.

Further, I sincerely do not mean offense to AIA Illinois or to you, but this is, at best, trivial praise. "One of 200", as @Magnolia677 pointed out? And why is this list any more important than, say, the CAF's? In an effort to provide context, a quick Google search turned up the AIA (in toto) naming it "one of the best ten works of American architecture completed since 1980." That exceedingly impressive award isn't in there (maybe should be), but none of the architectural awards it, Terminal 5, and the CTA station have racked up are listed, simply because we're always struggling to keep this an introductory article and not meant to function as the Encyclopedia of O'Hare.

Chidino (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Goldberger, Paul (August 23, 1987). "ARCHITECTURE VIEW; AN AIR TERMINAL INSPIRED BY THE TRAIN STATION". New York Times. Retrieved 23 August 2018.
  2. ^ Waldinger, Mike (January 30, 2018). "The proud history of architecture in Illinois". Springfield Business Journal. Retrieved 30 January 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:O%27Hare_International_Airport&oldid=862111858"